On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:> Hello World!> > I went to see Andrew Morton speak at Xerox PARC and he indicated that> some of the RT patch was a little crazy . Specifically interrupts in> threads (Correct me if I'm wrong Andrew). It seems a lot of the> maintainers haven't really warmed up to it. > > I don't know to what extent Ingo has lobbied to try to get acceptance> into an unstable or stable kernel. However, since I know Andrew is cold> to accepting it , I thought I would ask what would need to be done to> the RT patch so that it could be accepted?> > I think the fact that some distributions are including RT patched> kernels is a sign that this technology is getting mature. Not to mention> the fact that it's a 600k+ patch and getting bigger everyday. > > I'm sure there are some people fiercely opposed to it, some of whom I've> already run into. What is it about RT that gets people's skin crawling?> It is a configure option after all.

Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes and PIis something we should keep out of the kernel tree. If you want suchadvanced RT features use a special microkernel and run Linux as userprocess, using RTAI or maybe soon some of the more sofisticated virtualizationtechnologies.